Quick Reads

The best and worst players of the week according to Football Outsiders stats.

Super Bowl LII DVOA/Quick Reads

by Aaron Schatz (DVOA) and Vincent Verhei (Quick Reads)

So, how 'bout them Iggles?

As you can imagine from a game that set the all-time record for total yardage in NFL history, the offensive DVOA ratings were a lot better than the defensive DVOA ratings in Super Bowl LII. However, you might be surprised to see that the Patriots came out with a higher DVOA than the Eagles, despite losing the game.

DVOA (with opponent adjustments)

TEAM

TOT

OFF

DEF

ST

PHI

-5%

23%

34%

6%

NE

16%

63%

29%

-18%

VOA (no opponent adjustments)

TEAM

TOT

OFF

DEF

ST

PHI

-20%

30%

56%

6%

NE

-7%

51%

39%

-18%

The Patriots gained 8.5 yards per play compared to 7.6 yards per play for the Eagles. Both teams ran about 70 plays. Special teams cost the Patriots, a sentence nobody expected to write before the game was played. The Eagles also benefited from aggressive coaching decisions such as going for it on fourth downs as well as recovery of the game's only fumble. (If that strip-sack ball bounces back into Brady's hands, it's third-and-long and the Patriots get two opportunities to keep that next-to-last drive going.)

There might be some suggestion that the difference here is because of the yardage that the Patriots gained on end-of-half drives that didn't end in scores. The drive at the end of the second quarter gained 48 yards on four plays, not counting a clock-stopping spike, but that last 23-yard gain to Danny Amendola was totally meaningless as long as the Eagles didn't let him score. The Patriots then gained another 40 yards on the final drive of the game, with eight plays not counting a clock-stopping spike, but of course they couldn't get the catch on the 51-yard Hail Mary attempt.

However, the fact that the final drive was 40 yards in eight plays should be a good indication of why these drives did not artificially pump up DVOA. If you remove these drives, the Patriots still have the higher DVOA in this game, 11% to -2%.

Super Bowl LII continued a crazy trend where the losing team actually ends up with a higher rating in Patriots Super Bowls. This isn't always the case in DVOA because of opponent adjustments, but the losing team has come out with the higher VOA (without opponent adjustments) in six of eight Super Bowls featuring the Brady/Belichick Patriots. The only exceptions were Super Bowl XXXVI, where the Patriots and Rams had identical VOA ratings but the Patriots had a much higher DVOA because of opponent adjustments, and Super Bowl XXXIX, where the Patriots really dominated the Eagles even though Philadelphia did get the score within a field goal by the end of the game.

DVOA and VOA in Brady/Belichick Super Bowls

DVOA

VOA

Season

Opponent

Patriots

Opponent

Patriots

Opponent

Score

2001

STL

60%

-2%

7%

7%

NE, 20-17

2003

CAR

-1%

24%

-2%

4%

NE, 32-29

2004

PHI

64%

1%

43%

-31%

NE, 24-21

2007

NYG

6%

47%

9%

-12%

NYG, 17-14

2011

NYG

13%

15%

10%

-3%

NYG, 21-17

2014

SEA

22%

41%

-6%

23%

NE, 28-24

2015

ATL

6%

39%

-20%

15%

NE, 34-28 (OT)

2017

PHI

16%

-5%

-7%

-20%

PHI, 41-33

Thanks again to everyone for a great season at Football Outsiders. Please stick around into the offseason. We don't have anything huge for this offseason like last year's release of 1986-1988 DVOA ratings, but we will have the long-awaited return of our Futures column breaking down college prospects before the draft (by Film Room writers Charles McDonald and Derrik Klassen) as well as the 2017 Football Outsiders reader awards results and another update of Scott Kacsmar's historical quarterback postseason drive stats. In a couple days, we'll start talking about how to rebuild the Bears and Giants, and the whole cycle starts anew.

Congratulations to Brian Linzmeier of Long Beach, California, who is the winner of this year's FO Playoff Challenge. He was the best of the Tom Brady-Alshon Jeffrey combos that led our scoring, and wins a copy of the 2018 KUBIAK fantasy football projections. His full roster:

Now let's turn it over to Vince for some Quick Reads. Remember that these numbers are heavily influenced by opponent adjustments, since Philadelphia finished the season No. 5 in defensive DVOA while New England finished the season No. 31.

Quarterbacks

Rk

Player

Team

CP/AT

Yds

TD

INT

Sacks

TotalDYAR

PassDYAR

RushDYAR

Opp

1.

Tom Brady

NE

28/46

505

3

0

1

291

294

3

PHI

Brady's totals include -5 DYAR receiving for his one target, an incomplete pass on third down. Counting the playoffs, there were six games this season with at least 250 passing DYAR. Brady had three of them: in Week 2 against New Orleans, in the AFC Championship Game against Jacksonville, and now in the Super Bowl. By DYAR, this was the best playoff game of Brady's career, surpassing his six-touchdown game against Denver in the divisional round of the 2011 season. His AFC title game against Jacksonville is third-best, so yes, at age 40, Brady is quite literally playing better than ever before. Against Philadelphia, his best performance came in the third quarter, when he went 7-of-9 for 128 yards. All seven of those completions went for first downs, including two scores. On third/fourth downs, he went 6-of-10 for 125 yards and six conversions. By his standards, he didn't complete an especially high percentage of his passes, but he made those completions count -- 23 of 28 went for first downs, and only two (a 3-yard gain on second-and-6 and a 2-yard gain on second-and-10) were failed completions. The one area he was ineffective was throwing over the middle, where he went 4-of-8 for 44 yards.

2.

Nick Foles

PHI

28/43

373

3

1

0

173

160

0

NE

Foles' totals include 13 DYAR for his 1-yard touchdown catch on fourth-and-goal. (Trey Burton, by the way, gets 18 passing DYAR for that play, and -8 receiving DYAR for his one target, an incompletion.) Foles was at his best when the Eagles needed him most. After the Patriots took the lead in the fourth quarter, Foles went 8-of-10 for 65 yards, including first downs on five of his last six passes. He was good in scoring range; inside the New England 40, he went 8-of-14 for 99 yards and all three touchdowns. All three of those touchdowns were thrown to his left, but let's not overlook Foles' nigh-perfection when throwing up the middle: 6-of-6 for 83 yards and five first downs (the one completion that was not a first down was a 7-yard gain on first-and-10). On third and fourth downs, he went 12-of-15 for 171 yards and 10 conversions, including two scores.

Running Backs by DYAR (Total)

Rk

Player

Team

Runs

RushYds

RushTD

Rec

RecYds

RecTD

TotalDYAR

RushDYAR

RecDYAR

Opp

1.

Corey Clement

PHI

3

8

0

4/5

100

1

51

-3

54

NE

Clement's only successful run was a 6-yard gain on first-and-goal from the 8; his other two carries gained 1 yard each. His catches, however, were explosive: a 16-yard gain on second-and-4; a 55-yard gain on third-and-3; a 22-yard touchdown on third-and-6; and a 7-yard gain on second-and-8.

2.

Rex Burkhead

NE

3

18

0

1/1

46

0

35

12

23

PHI

Ordinarily Burkhead would not have made our tables due to a lack of touches, but since there was only one game this week and he made such a big impact, we added him. His three runs: 4- and 5-yard gains on first-and-10, and a 9-yard gain on second-and-5. His one catch went for 46 yards on first-and-10.

3.

Dion Lewis

NE

9

39

0

0/0

0

0

17

17

0

PHI

A long run of only 8 yards and just one first down, but each of Lewis' carries gained positive yardage.

4.

James White

NE

7

45

1

2/6

21

0

13

24

-10

PHI

Six of White's seven carries gained 2 yards or more, including a 26-yard touchdown. He caught both of his targets in the first quarter, but went 0-for-4 after that.

5.

LeGarrette Blount

PHI

14

90

1

0/0

0

0

13

13

0

NE

Three first downs, which came on gains of 36, 21 (the touchdown), and 10 yards, while getting hit for a loss twice.

6.

Jay Ajayi

PHI

9

57

0

0/0

0

0

11

11

0

NE

One 26-yard gain on third-and-4, one other first down, and just one run for a loss.

Five Best Wide Receivers and Tight Ends by DYAR

Rk

Player

Team

Rec

Att

Yds

Avg

TD

TotalDYAR

Opp

1.

Chris Hogan

NE

6

8

128

21.3

1

60

PHI

Hogan's totals include 57 DYAR receiving, 3 DYAR rushing for his one carry for 4 yards. Five of his six catches resulted in first downs, including a 26-yard touchdown, plus gains of 43 and 28.

2.

Danny Amendola

NE

8

11

152

19.0

0

53

PHI

Amendola's totals include 59 DYAR receiving, -6 DYAR passing for his incomplete pass thrown to Tom Brady. On third and fourth downs, he caught 5-of-6 passes for five conversions and 111 yards.

3.

Zach Ertz

PHI

7

9

67

9.6

1

49

NE

On first downs, Ertz had two catches in three throws for 14 yards and no first downs. On third and fourth downs, he had five catches in six throws for 53 yards and five first downs. He didn't have any targets on second down.

4.

Rob Gronkowski

NE

9

15

116

12.9

2

43

PHI

First half: five throws, one catch, 9 yards, one first down. Second half: ten throws, eight catches, 107 yards, seven first downs.

5.

Nelson Agholor

PHI

9

11

84

9.3

0

13

NE

Agholor's totals include 4 DYAR receiving, 9 DYAR rushing for his one carry for 9 yards. In the first half, he had three catches in four targets for 13 yards and no first downs. In the second half, he had six catches in seven targets for 71 yards and five first downs. That includes one catch that lost 8 yards on third-and-3; his other five second-half catches averaged 17.4 yards apiece.

Worst Wide Receiver or Tight End by DYAR

Rk

Player

Team

Rec

Att

Yds

Avg

TD

TotalDYAR

Opp

1.

Torrey Smith

PHI

5

9

49

9.8

0

-17

NE

Smith had two first downs, including a conversion on third-and-12, but he was also the target of incomplete passes on second-and-3 and third-and-1.

Comments

"Thanks again to everyone for a great season at Football Outsiders. Please stick around into the offseason. We don't have anything huge for this offseason like last year's release of 1986-1988 DVOA ratings, "

Will the 1985 DVOA come out this offseason? Looking forward to seeing the Bears rating.

You might be surprised to see that the Patriots came out with a higher DVOA than the Eagles, despite losing the game.

Or maybe we wouldn't be surprised.

1) Fumble "luck" was critical in the outcome.
2) A missed field goal by the Patriots doesn't help the Eagles' VOA.
3) The clock worked in the Eagles' favor, negating some of the Patriots' yards.
4) VOA prefers teams that fall behind and catch up over teams that do the reverse. (the baselines - the A in VOA - get skewed for both)

The VOAs are indicative of a game that falls near a tie, going to OT, or turning on a non-predictive play or two. That's exactly what we saw. That was a great football game, or at least very, very entertaining.

There's no award for winning VOA but losing the game. Congrats to the Eagles and their fans on a gutsy win.

Yeah, that was a really great performance by the Pats against an excellent Eagles defense. Brady kept hanging in the pocket until just before the rush got to him, and it seemed like his timing was perfect...right up until the strip-sack.

I wasn't rooting for either team in a big way, but I was glad to see that the Eagles finished the game the way you have to against the Patriots. They stuck to their aggressive play calls, including the killer fourth-and-one at midfield that enabled them to burn a lot more clock, and forced the Pats to use their timeouts. Above all, they didn't panic when the Pats came out in the third and started calmly putting up points. Masterful clock management.

I'm not surprised DVOA liked the Pats more, but I am surprised VOA did. New England seemed to have fewer sustained drives, and more oscillation between chunk plays (Hole-in-Zone had a terrible game) and empty plays. I figured New England had enough plays over the 20 yard cap that they would lose some of the credit for their yardage.

If you slice it just right, you can make the Eagles look slightly better at "sustained drives". I guess. But it's hard. Most of these are tied or give the edge to the Patriots. I wouldn't claim either team had an advantage from these.

How about time of possession? N or more minutes on a drive.

N=7 PHI:2 NE:0
N=4 PHI:4 NE:1
N=3 PHI:5 NE:4

Okay, that's a difference. The Patriots played faster on offense. That's their style. Why exactly would that figure into VOA?

PFRs play finder doesn't work for the Super Bowl yet, but by a quick look, New England had 11 plays of >20 yards to Philadelphia's 7.

Philadelphia ran half a play more per drive, and converted half a 3rd down more per drive. Basically, they churned out lots of little successful plays and converted a lot of leverage plays, and lost little excess yardage to chunk plays. I figured that would offset New England's greater net yardage.

From an EPA perspective, Philadelphia pinned New England's against the clock in both halves and basically wasted 100 of their yards.

Those are things that would make their VOA worse. Having more of your first downs earned on third downs means you are having lower valued plays on first and second down. Having slightly more plays per drive, while amassing fewer yards or first downs per drive means your per play efficiency is lower. Having fewer high yardage plays is also a sign of not doing as well.

Don't fool yourself that this should have been a VOA advantage for the Eagles. It was close. The Patriots were better per play, but wasted more plays, either due to missed field goals or the clock running out.

I don't think Brady's as accurate as he was when he was younger but mentally and experience-wise he's phenomenal. As Collinsworth said, there's nothing defenses can throw at him that he hasn't seen before. It gives Belichick the confidence to build an offense around him and just keep inserting new receivers/backs as required.

I think his mental game may be as good as it's ever been, but you see signs that he's past his physical peak. It doesn't take a huge reversion before your body isn't making those passes in the timing your brain thinks it will be.

I think it's also a case of Brady, McDaniels and Belichick knowing Brady's physical strengths and weaknesses and playing to them very well.

In the final seconds, Collinsworth said that they should have taken two shots at the end zone instead of grabbing chunks of yardage. I think that the Pats know the exact point on the field where Brady can throw up a very catchable hail mary after buying time in the pocket, and were aiming to get him to that spot.

And look how close it came to working! He barely escaped a rusher, looked up field, and then put everything he had into a ball that came down just about where you'd want it in the end zone. They even got the tip drill, and if the NE receiver trailing Gronk hadn't been knocked off his stride, that might have been even closer.

I remember Collinsworth saying that, but I think your point is not true. The play right before the hail mary was an incompletion, so if McDaniels and company thought Brady needed those ten-ish extra yards, they were wrong.

Out of curiosity, how do Brady's SB performances rank by DYAR? As a non-Pats fan, it's kind of a sweet justice to see him play a solid game and lose after seeing it happen so many times to my guy Rodgers and others like Manning, Brees, etc.
And there have been a few playoff games where he played poorly and they still won, which never seems to happen for Rodgers and rarely did for Manning.

I don't have the DYAR numbers, but that perception is driven almost entirely by INTs. He was average against KC, completing 30-38, but throwing three INTs.

He was not good against BAL, a team that had a ridiculous defense playing at home that played at a great level.

He was great against NE, leading the comeback from 21-3 down, and had a good Super Bowl in a driving rainstorm against the NFCs best defense.

Manning had to play three of the best defenses in the NFL (I think #1-3 in scoring defense) back-to-back-to-back. He had better postseason runs, but he wasn't exactly Dilfer-ing his way to a ring that year.

Your point about the defenses Manning faced is well-taken, but I'm not sure the same benefit of the doubt is given to Brady when parsing his playoff "luck." Between FO, his Twitter account, and his blog, Scott by himself has probably written 20,000 words on how terribly Brady played in the 2011 AFC CG, for example. Baltimore was #1 in defensive DVOA that year. For Peyton and those that (correctly) believe his playoff shortcomings are overstated, I think it's more that he had a bunch of fluke losses in other years rather than his 2006 playoff run was actually very good.

Either way, seems kind of a stretch to say PaddyPat's point -- that Manning didn't play well each game and the Colts still won -- "isn't close to true." It's... pretty close to true. He had one amazing, all-time half, and he gets due credit for that. Otherwise he was mediocre. And from a karmic penance standpoint re: other playoff games of his, I think it's okay to admit that out loud.

I actually argue that he was not mediocre against Chicago. I thought he played really well in tough conditions against a great defense.

I see your point about Brady, and I don't think he played all that badly in the 2011 Title Game. I think the Patriots were lucky to win, but Brady played fine, if anything, he was better in that game than Manning was in the 2006 Division game in Baltimore.

I would say Rodgers and Brees have both had defenses shit the bed in theplayoffs far more than Brady has. Even in the two Giants losses I believe the Pats D allowed 17 and 19 (due to the safety). The D only allowed 21 to an Atlanta juggernaut a year ago.

True. Some of those Pittsburgh defenses have left the offence high and dry over the years. This makes me want to make a completely unscientific chart of current SB-winning QBs’ defensive points allowed in their playoff careers.

1) What would have been the FO Challenge "Best possible Lineup"?
2) Where does Atlanta's 33% delta (39% - 6%) rank all-time in terms of worst losses by a team that actually outplayed the winner in terms of DVOA?

Where does Atlanta's 33% delta (39% - 6%) rank all-time in terms of worst losses by a team that actually outplayed the winner in terms of DVOA?

DVOA doesn't work like that.

First, DVOA is about how well you played compared to what an average team would have been expected to do against that opponent. For example, if you are a big under dog but only get slightly outplayed, DVOA says you "outplayed" them. But you didn't. You need VOA to see whether you outplayed your opponent.

Second, total VOA for teams covers all phases of the game. You don't need to subtract one team's VOA from the other. That would be double counting things. Except for some kinds of plays that are only counted on one team's VOA, the two teams would simply mirror each other in VOA.

The best way to characterize that ATL-NE game would be to say "VOA says Atlanta outplayed New England in per play average by between 15% and 20%". If I remember it right, that's a level of difference usually associated with about a 3 point win, provided the teams have roughly even play counts.

It would be cool to see a scatter plot of VOA versus point margin. Maybe losing with a 15% VOA is highly unusual. Maybe it's common. It would be fun to know.

Aaron any word yet if you have all the data needed for the 1985 and 1984 seasons? I know you have a lot on your plate now but excited about those seasons and how they stack up against Andrew Shepards' estimated DVOA.

We're still missing a couple of games. But also I have a ton on my plate this offseason so I may not be able to get to 1984-1985 even if we decide to just run it with approximations of those couple missing games.

Most Recent FO Features

After a dull postseason, Championship Sunday produced two overtime games and two road upsets. The Chiefs join a growing list of offensive juggernauts paired with poor defenses that fell short of a ring. Also: was that the worst non-call ever in New Orleans, and what should the NFL do about expanding replay and overtime?